BINOCULAR TUBE MAGNIFIER

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78B04770A002900020061-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 30, 2005
• Sequence Number: 61
• Publication Date: July 21, 1964
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2 1/21 : CIA-RDP78BO477002900020061-3
July 21, 1964
ULAR TUBE MAGNIFIER
Declass Review by NGA.
The enclosed letter from dated 17 July
briefly discusses what they think t ey can do in a
lOx binocular tube magnifier. Their description is
quite brief and does not go into much illustrative
detail which is exactly what we asked them to do when
Bill M., George T., and I visited them in June.
If you think I Iconcepts are appropriate and
worth considering, they will go into the second phase
of the proposal which would rough out the design ap-
proach and performance and give an order of magnitude
of cost. If that, in turn, looks good, they would
then prepare a definitive priced proposal.
In order for .a. three-stage procedure to be successful,
it is necessary for you to comment at each stage to
provide guidance and direction for the following stage.
Such comments are valuable for illuminating and
clarifying the thinking on both sides.
1. Is the 1/2" field mentioned by good or
marginal? Are extraordinary means desirable
to obtain an even wider field of view?
2. Is it important to get more than 67 lines per
millimeter resolution at the object or is that
adequate?
3. With respect to distortion, color fringing,
and brightness, what do you consider the best
existing magnifier? What microscope do you
consider as a performance standard?
=did not discuss the 20x magnifier. Do you
want separate comments on that or will you
assume for the present a direct scaling from
lox?
STAT
STAT
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP78BO477OA002900020061-3
 Approved For lease 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP78BO477002900020061-3
Binocular Tube Magnifier July 21, 1964
4. The mechanics of the magnifier were not discussed.
They are intimately related to the detail design
approach and must necessarily be defined later.
The next stage proposal would probably only dis-
cuss a general arrangement and overall dimensions.
What specifically do you dislike about existing
magnifiers?
5. does not have a product line of tube
Magnifiers such a
others. While their approach may have some fresh
ideas, they will have to start from the beginning
with a custom design. As such, the prototype
may be more costly, so do you consider it worth-
while for them to continue the proposal effort?
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP78BO477OA002900020061-3